Should we "defund" NPR?

[bicker]

In light of the recent firing of Juan Williams from National Public Radio, Should we withdraw taxpayer funding from that entity?

No. An employer taking action against an employee for besmirching the reputation of the employer is not a reasonable foundation for any action against the employer. Indeed, quite the opposite. NPR should be praised for taking responsible action as an employer in response to irresponsible action by an employee.

Whether NPR should be funded or not is a different matter. This specific instance you referred to has no reasonable bearing on that.

 

[bicker]

You think it was ok he got fired for expressing an opinion?

You're arguing from a false premise. He was fired for harming the reputation of his employer.

Isn't the thread about wrongful termination by a gov't funded program because of bias?

No. It's about the rightful termination of an employee by a not-for-profit corporation.

 

[ManMythLegend]

You're arguing from a false premise. He was fired for harming the reputation of his employer.

No. It's about the rightful termination of an employee by a not-for-profit corporation.

How did he harm the reputation of his employer? He didn't appear on FOX as an employee of NPR, he appeared as Juan Williams. And gave his opinion on the subject.

If I go on TV and say muslims scare me, my employer does not have the right to fire me for that.

 

[bicker]

How did he harm the reputation of his employer?

NPR's statement said all that needed to be said in this regard. Read the statement - and read it keeping in mind that your personal preferences regarding these matters don't apply to them. Rather their overall audience's perspective prevails in that regard.

He didn't appear on FOX as an employee of NPR, he appeared as Juan Williams.

Read his employment contract and you'll realize the error you've made with regard to this.

If I go on TV and say muslims scare me, my employer does not have the right to fire me for that.

They might. Folks would be folls to assume that they don't, without being sure that they haven't made commitments to that effect.

 

[ManMythLegend]

NPR's statement said all that needed to be said in this regard. Read the statement - and read it keeping in mind that your personal preferences regarding these matters don't apply to them. Rather their overall audience's perspective prevails in that regard.

Read his employment contract and you'll realize the error you've made with regard to this.

They might. Folks would be folls to assume that they don't, without being sure that they haven't made commitments to that effect.

Contracts can be voided in favor of common sense. If you don't think a contract has ever been voided by a judge, you're new to the field of law. NPR does NOT own Juan Williams and his mind. He can talk and speak as he chooses as long as he's not an agent of NPR and he did not appear as an agent of NPR during this particular occasion.

 

[Magicbus]

.

I was going to respond to your post, but then I saw your location and decided not to.

 

[bicker]

Contracts can be voided in favor of common sense.

No they can't. They can only be voided for violation of public policy. These contract provisions are not violations of public policy.

I know you don't like the way things are. However, denying the reality isn't going to make it go away.

NPR does NOT own Juan Williams and his mind.

However, he did agree to clear his public appearances through NPR. He neglected to do so. He violated his word, and in doing so he sacrificed any entitlement he may have had to the dogged dedication you seem to have for him. Instead of seeing how his ignorance of the commitments he voluntarily entered into ruins his credibility, you seem to be extolling the virtues of neglecting your duties, of failing to live up to your promises. I can't believe that you sincerely hold to such values, so perhaps you're advocating in the direction you are for other reasons.

I was going to respond to your post, but then I saw your location and decided not to.

That's okay. We've already established in other threads that some states are better than others.

 

[ManMythLegend]

No they can't. They can only be voided for violation of public policy. These contract provisions are not violations of public policy.

I know you don't like the way things are. However, denying the reality isn't going to make it go away.

However, he did agree to clear his public appearances through NPR. He neglected to do so. He violated his word, and in doing so he sacrificed any entitlement he may have had to the dogged dedication you seem to have for him. Instead of seeing how his ignorance of the commitments he voluntarily entered into ruins his credibility, you seem to be extolling the virtues of neglecting your duties, of failing to live up to your promises. I can't believe that you sincerely hold to such values, so perhaps you're advocating in the direction you are for other reasons.


That's okay. We've already established in other threads that some states are better than others.

Ahh once again mistaken my friend. NPR says they fired him for not clearing his appearance on FOX through them but it is clearly documented he has done this many many times in the past and was not fired. So the real reason he was fired was for expressing a view that the left winged ideological NPR did not agree with. Therefore if Williams decided to fight this it would be interesting to see how it played out. Most AMERICANS agree with the view that Williams expressed which would only weaken NPR's case. My guess, they settle out of court and NPR ends up looking bigger fools than they already do.

I know you're not an attorney in matters of employment so I think it's best you leave this to the experts.

 

[bicker]

Ahh once again mistaken my friend.

I'm not mistaken in the slightest. It is ridiculous for you to say that.

NPR says they fired him for not clearing his appearance on FOX through them but it is clearly documented he has done this many many times in the past and was not fired.

There is no requirement for an employer to fire someone for every infraction of their contract. It's called forgiveness.

He violated his contract. He paid the consequences. You're trying to rationalize away a gross dereliction of personal responsibility. Neglecting personal responsibility is not an ethic.

I know you're not an attorney in matters of employment so I think it's best you leave this to the experts.

Why? You're not. And I actually know what I'm talking about.

 

[Magicbus]

That's okay. We've already established in other threads that some states are better than others.

You're absolutely correct.

 

[ManMythLegend]

.Why? You're not. And I actually know what I'm talking about.

Mm hmm, based on the posts you make in a lot of different threads, you seem to think you're an expert in a lot of different areas.

 

[Geoff_M]

You're arguing from a false premise. He was fired for harming the reputation of his employer.

Actually, he did get fired for expressing a personal opinion. The reason given by NPR's CEO was that he violated the supposed policy that "News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues". Doing so, per the CEO, "undermines their credibility as analysts." So, he was fired for damaging his reputation, not NPR's.

Charles Krauthammer called (For self-disclosure for MissFit, the link is from a "biased" site) NPR's apparent double-standard on the carpet in front of still-employed Totenberg:

“Why is it okay for Nina to express opinions, as she has tartly, sharply, unashamedly and openly” while serving as “an honored correspondent” for NPR, while Juan Williams, “because he expresses his opinions, gets canned from NPR?” So Charles Krauthammer demanded while sitting Friday with Totenberg on the same Inside Washington set. “In fact, the standard ought to be lower in the case of Juan because he’s an analyst, whereas Nina is a correspondent.”

Krauthammer had picked up on NPR CEO Vivian Schiller’s contention that the network had canned Williams because he violated the policy that “news analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that's what's happened in this situation.”

An uncomfortable Totenberg asserted “it’s a very, very difficult line to draw. And NPR tries to draw it, in my view, using rules that don’t exist anymore.” To which, Krauthammer wondered: “But what’s the difference between you and Juan expressing opinions? You on this show, and him on Fox?” He condemned NPR: “It’s completely illogical and hypocritical.”

 

[OceanAnnie]

I think it's odd that NPR has not fired a commentator for calling someone, "excrement in broadcasting", and they have not fired the journalist that stated, "...if she witnessed Limbaugh dying of a heart attack, she would “laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out.”.

Such high standards, when all things are considered.

 

[bicker]

Mm hmm, based on the posts you make in a lot of different threads, you seem to think you're an expert in a lot of different areas.

No... only in a few. You won't see me posting expert perspective in the crafting forum, or on the camping board. You won't see me commenting about the latest fashion. I stick with what I know: economics, and the software, electronics, entertainment, hospitality and travel industries.

I suggest it would be best for all posters to stick to what they know.

And welcome to the DIS boards.

 

[bicker]

Actually, he did get fired for expressing a personal opinion.

No, that's not the case, as you point out later in that paragraph:

So, he was fired for damaging his reputation, not NPR's.

A fine point. I think it is reasonable to say that his degrading his own reputation degrades the reputation of his employer should they not have taken action against him. But I'll accept your amendment, to this extent.

 

[WeCantWait]

In light of the recent firing of Juan Williams from National Public Radio, Should we withdraw taxpayer funding from that entity?

We sure should. They shouldn't have been getting funding to begin with.

 

[ManMythLegend]

Nonsense Public Radio

 

[DawnCt1]

We sure should. They shouldn't have been getting funding to begin with.

ITA!

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Do people realize that NPR is not directly funded by the Federal Government at all? Again, they receive NO direct funding from the government. Less than two percent of NPR's budget is derived from competitive grants from federally funded organizations such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation, and National Endowment for the Arts.

So, is thread really saying that all of those organizations, including the National Science Foundation, should be defunded because NPR made an unpopular staffing decision?

 

[Magicbus]

Do people realize that NPR is not directly funded by the Federal Government at all?

I for one do realize that NPR gets about 2% in direct funding from us, which IMO is still too much. However they are indirectly funded by our hard earned money none the less. Research it, and you'll get the whole story. They are indirectly funded by our tax dollars that the member stations receive and in turn pay NPR for programing.